Prevailing Wage-Job Classifications

August 2025

Background:

BCAP member companies consist of both union and non-union employees, and we respect the use of prevailing wage rates for projects funded with public tax dollars. We believe wage rates should be appropriate to the work being done, and not applied through a broad, catch-all classification.

Current Status:

Current Capital Projects Fund (CPF) guidelines mandate the application of the prevailing wage on broadband deployment projects for contract labor work. (The guidelines also apply to the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment – BEAD – program.)

In July 2024, Verizon and Verizon North appealed to the Prevailing Wage Appeals Board to request appropriate job classifications for the work that will be done as part of their CPF-BIP contracts, which were awarded on April 18, 2024. BCAP, Brightspeed and Communications Workers of America were included as intervenors with Verizon, and IBEW as an intervenor with the PA Department of Labor and Industry.

That litigation included nine days of evidentiary hearings February-April, 2025, and concluding briefs filed in May and June, 2025. Closing arguments were held before the Board on July 11. The matter is now before the Prevailing Wage Appeals Board with a decision expected in 30 to 90 days.

Instead of appropriate classifications for cable-fiber splicer or teledata lineman, the PA Department of Labor and Industry insists broadband companies use the “electric lineman” classification and at rates 30% to 40% higher than even current telecommunications workers under union contracts. In doing so, L&I is ignoring the practices of both the federal government and dozens of other states by refusing to establish job classifications for companies installing rural broadband. The department also asserts it is not responsible to help ensure that the Internet for All program succeeds.

The use of appropriate classifications for appropriate work makes sense. The work of an electric lineman is far different than a telecommunications line worker and a cable/fiber splicer. Workers within the broadband space are trained in various precautions and safe practices relevant to their work with teledata cables and are not trained to work with and are prohibited from working with electric lines. We firmly believe that prevailing wage classifications should match the work, as they do in states such as New York, Connecticut and Maryland.

We believe that specificity of job classifications in the telecommunication space will, as in other states, allow public funds to go as far as possible. This appeal by Verizon will set precedent and will also allow the use of such prevailing wage classifications for publicly funded broadband expansion programs.

At this point in time, the grievants believe the following:
The L&I’s Bureau of Labor Law Compliance represented itself as the Secretary’s “delegate,” despite having no written delegation or other proof that the Secretary authorized it to make prevailing wage determinations under the PWA.
Despite this absence of authority, the Bureau, as the purported delegate of the Secretary, determined that there was no separate classification of worker in Pennsylvania for teledata linemen and splicers for highway and heavy projects, and instead, teledata linemen and splicers fit the classification of electric linemen. In making these determinations, neither the Bureau nor Secretary consulted with the Prevailing Wage Advisory Board. In fact, the Director of the Bureau admitted he has never relied on the Board since becoming Director in 2018 – seven years ago – and could not name members of the Board when asked.
BCAP asked the secretary to create classifications for teledata work, in particular, teledata lineman, cable splicers, and installers, as the appropriate classification of workers for BIP, and determine a prevailing wage for each county in the Commonwealth that reflects such classification’s investment, experience, and job responsibilities. Extensive support and research were sent with the request.
In November 2024, six months after Grievants and Intervenors were awarded grants, counties in Pennsylvania had not received prevailing wage determinations. Verizon submitted wage requests to the Bureau for the 16 counties where the company was contracted to do BIP work. The information within the requests included information about the job titles and wages for the localities, previous work Verizon performed in the localities, fringe benefits, and indicated which of its employees resided in the localities where the BIP work was to be conducted. Verizon ended its letter by asking the Bureau to reach out if additional information was needed. The response from the Bureau, purportedly on behalf of the Secretary, was that the prevailing wage determination was made and there was no reason to change it. The determinations were made within the same day, some as soon as 90 minutes, or within less than 2 business hours.
The Secretary and Bureau failed to comport with and follow the PWA, failed to consult with the Prevailing Wage Advisory Board; failed to investigate the class of worker and prevailing wage for the broadband industry with which it had not previously dealt, and when the information was provided to them, the Secretary and Bureau ignored and overlooked the broadband industry’s custom and usage for use of workers and the prevailing wages for such workers.
BLLC also acknowledged in prevailing wage determinations for the Pittsburgh area a separate classification for telecommunication workers.
Finally, it became apparent during discovery that there exists a collective bargaining agreement with teledata linemen from IBEW and contains the information L&I would need to create such appropriate classifications. Acknowledgement of this agreement will set a clear path to appropriate classifications and wages and is the simplest way to resolve the issue.

Whichever party loses at the PWAB is expected to seek court review and relief in the state Commonwealth Court. This has the potential to cause significant delays in both CPF project work, along with the BEAD process in Pennsylvania.

In regards to the BEAD program, all 3 parties in the CPF litigation asked for a hearing and investigation for job classifications in late July, since wage determinations were requested by DCED. That was again denied by the L&I Secretary.

We fear that if these dollars are not applied well, the federal dollars and the effort will be wasted. Funding from both CPF and BEAD presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deploy broadband to unserved and underserved portions of our geographically diverse state.

Although we all represent different portions of the telecommunications space, we as an industry share the goal of serving as many people as possible. To do otherwise would not only be a waste of taxpayer dollars but an opportunity lost. Our citizens deserve better.